Dow Chemical Co. et al. v. NOVA Chemicals Corp., (2016) 487 N.R. 230 (FCA)
Court | Federal Court of Appeal (Canada) |
Case Date | September 06, 2016 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2016), 487 N.R. 230 (FCA);2016 FCA 216 |
Dow Chemical v. NOVA Chemicals (2016), 487 N.R. 230 (FCA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2016] N.R. TBEd. SE.010
NOVA Chemicals Corporation (appellant) v. The Dow Chemical Company, Dow Global Technologies Inc. and Dow Chemical Canada ULC (respondents)
(A-379-14; 2016 FCA 216)
Indexed As: Dow Chemical Co. et al. v. NOVA Chemicals Corp.
Federal Court of Appeal
Webb, Boivin and de Montigny, JJ.A.
September 6, 2016.
Summary:
The plaintiff, The Dow Chemical Company, owned the patent for polyethylene compositions and the films made from such compositions (Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705 (the '705 Patent)). The plaintiff, Dow Chemical Canada ULC manufactured polyethylene copolymers in Canada under license of the '705 Patent and sold polyethylene film-grade copolymers under the name ELITE in Canada. The defendant, NOVA Chemicals Corp. (NOVA) manufactured and sold polyethylene film-grade copolymers under the name SURPASS in Canada. The plaintiffs sued NOVA for patent infringement, seeking to stop NOVA from engaging in the unauthorized and infringing manufacture, distribution, offering for sale, sale and use in Canada of polyethylene compositions, which encompassed the patented technology. NOVA challenged the validity of a number of claims in the '705 patent.
The Federal Court, in a decision reported (2014), 462 F.T.R. 222, held that the impugned claims in the '705 patent were valid and that NOVA had infringed the patent by manufacturing in Canada and distributing, offering for sale, selling or otherwise making available film-grade polymers under the name SURPASS. The plaintiffs were entitled to, inter alia, elect between an accounting or profits or damages to be assessed. In a schedule attached to the court's reasons, the court dealt with evidentiary issues that arose in this case. NOVA appealed respecting all of the trial court's findings of validity and the construction of the patent as well as the corresponding findings of infringement.
The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that the arguments raised by NOVA were no more that mere disagreements with the trial court's factual findings and assessment of expert evidence.
Patents of Invention - Topic 1032
The specification and claims - Construction of a patent - Particular patents - The Federal Court interpreted the claims in Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705 respecting polyethylene compositions, and in particular, the words: "comprising", "heterogeneously branched" and "slope of strain hardening coefficient" - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal - See paragraphs 52 to 87.
Patents of Invention - Topic 1130
The specification and claims - The description - Claims for more than what was invented - The plaintiff, The Dow Chemical Company, owned the patent for polyethylene compositions and the films made from such compositions (Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705 (the '705 Patent)) - The plaintiff, Dow Chemical Canada ULC manufactured polyethylene copolymers in Canada under license of the '705 Patent and sold polyethylene film-grade copolymers under the name ELITE in Canada - The defendant, NOVA Chemicals Corporation (NOVA) manufactured and sold polyethylene film-grade copolymers under the name SURPASS in Canada - The Dow plaintiffs sued NOVA, alleging patent infringement - NOVA challenged the patent's validity on the ground that the claims were broader than any invention made as disclosed - The Federal Court held that the patent was not invalid for overbreadth - NOVA appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 45 to 51.
Patents of Invention - Topic 1589
Grounds of invalidity - Lack of "inventive ingenuity" (obviousness) - Particular patents - The plaintiff, The Dow Chemical Company, owned the patent for polyethylene compositions and the films made from such compositions (Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705 (the '705 Patent)) - The plaintiff, Dow Chemical Canada ULC manufactured polyethylene copolymers in Canada under license of the '705 Patent and sold polyethylene film-grade copolymers under the name ELITE in Canada - The defendant, NOVA Chemicals Corporation (NOVA) manufactured and sold polyethylene film-grade copolymers under the name SURPASS in Canada - The Dow plaintiffs sued NOVA, alleging patent infringement - NOVA challenged the validity of the patent on the ground of obviousness - The Federal Court held that the '705 patent was not invalid on this ground - NOVA appealed - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 38 to 44.
Patents of Invention - Topic 1725
Grounds of invalidity - Lack of utility and operability - Particular patents - The plaintiff, The Dow Chemical Company, owned the patent for polyethylene compositions and the films made from such compositions (Canadian Patent No. 2,160,705 (the '705 Patent)) - The plaintiff, Dow Chemical Canada ULC manufactured polyethylene copolymers in Canada under license of the '705 Patent and sold polyethylene film-grade copolymers under the name ELITE in Canada - The defendant, NOVA Chemicals Corporation (NOVA) manufactured and sold polyethylene film-grade copolymers under the name SURPASS in Canada - The Dow plaintiffs sued NOVA, alleging patent infringement - NOVA challenged the validity of the patent on the ground of lack of utility - The Federal Court held that the patent was not invalid for want of utility - NOVA appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in deciding there was no promise of synergistic utility - The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - It was open to the trial court to find that the inventors did not make an explicit promise of a specific result and the patent did meet the test of a "mere scintilla" of utility - See paragraphs 16 to 37.
Counsel:
Robert MacFarlane, Michael Charles, Andrew McIntosh, Joshua Spicer and Amrita Singh, for the appellant;
Ronald Dimock, Ryan Evans, Steven Garland and Jeremy Want, for the respondents.
Solicitors of Record:
Bereskin & Parr LLP, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;
Dimock Stratton LLP, Toronto, Ontario, and Smart & Biggar, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondents.
This appeal was heard in Toronto, Ontario, on December 7 and 8, 2015, before Webb, Boivin and de Montigny, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court in Ottawa, Ontario, on September 6, 2016.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nova Chemicals Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co., 2022 SCC 43
...these arguments, holding that the patent was valid and that Nova had infringed the patent (2014 FC 844, 129 C.P.R. (4th) 199, aff’d 2016 FCA 216, 142 C.P.R. (4th) 339). As a remedy, Dow was permitted to seek an accounting of profits, to be assessed by a subsequent reference. [19] ......
-
Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., 2022 FC 507
...the specifications does not necessarily mean that such a feature is of the essence of the patent” (Nova Chemicals Corp v Dow Chemical Co, 2016 FCA 216, at para 50). [449] It has often been said that overbreadth and insufficiency are the two sides of the same coin. Here is how the propositio......
-
Dow Chemical Company c. Nova Chemicals Corporation,
...2016 (Nova Chemicals Corporation c. Dow 164 [2018] 2 F.C.R.Dow ChemiCal Company v. nova ChemiCals CoRpoRationDow Chemical Company, 2016 FCA 216 (Dow v. Nova (FCA))).[3] Justice O’Keefe heard only the liability phase of the action. Pursuant to his judgment, Dow was entitled to damages......
-
Takeda Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2024 FC 106
...10-11 and 16 that are the same as terms used in claim 1, they have the same meaning: Nova Chemicals Corporation v Dow Chemical Company, 2016 FCA 216 [Nova Chemicals] at para [96] The following discussion will address the claim elements in dispute. (a) “a first and a second doseȁ......
-
Nova Chemicals Corp. v. Dow Chemical Co., 2022 SCC 43
...these arguments, holding that the patent was valid and that Nova had infringed the patent (2014 FC 844, 129 C.P.R. (4th) 199, aff’d 2016 FCA 216, 142 C.P.R. (4th) 339). As a remedy, Dow was permitted to seek an accounting of profits, to be assessed by a subsequent reference. [19] ......
-
Angelcare Canada Inc. v. Munchkin, Inc., 2022 FC 507
...the specifications does not necessarily mean that such a feature is of the essence of the patent” (Nova Chemicals Corp v Dow Chemical Co, 2016 FCA 216, at para 50). [449] It has often been said that overbreadth and insufficiency are the two sides of the same coin. Here is how the propositio......
-
Dow Chemical Company c. Nova Chemicals Corporation,
...2016 (Nova Chemicals Corporation c. Dow 164 [2018] 2 F.C.R.Dow ChemiCal Company v. nova ChemiCals CoRpoRationDow Chemical Company, 2016 FCA 216 (Dow v. Nova (FCA))).[3] Justice O’Keefe heard only the liability phase of the action. Pursuant to his judgment, Dow was entitled to damages......
-
Teva Canada Limited v. Janssen Inc., 2023 FCA 68
...292 A.C.W.S. (3d) 146 at para. 96, leave to appeal to SCC refused [2018] 3 S.C.R. vi; Nova Chemicals Corporation v. Dow Chemical Company, 2016 FCA 216, 142 C.P.R. (4th) 339 at para. 14; Pfizer Canada Inc. v. Apotex Inc., 2014 FCA 54, 117 C.P.R. (4th) 401 at para. 13; Bell Helicopter Textron......
-
What The Supreme Court Of Canada Was Not Told About Patent Utility
...Pfizer v Apotex, 2011 FCA 236 rev'g 2010 FC 447 (Latanoprost II) 8 For example, see: Plavix FCA at para 54; Nova Chemicals v Dow Chemical, 2016 FCA 216 at para 16 9 Apotex v Pfizer, 2014 FCA 250 at para 64 [Celebrex], citing Apotex v Wellcome Foundation, 2002 SCC 77 [AZT] 10 Five promises w......
-
Court Of Appeal Upholds Finding Of Infringement And Only Requires A 'Mere Scintilla' Of Utility (Intellectual Property Weekly Abstracts Bulletin (Week Of SEPTEMBER 19, 2016)
...appeal upholds finding of infringement and only requires a "mere scintilla" of utility Nova Chemicals Corporation v. Dow Chemical Company, 2016 FCA 216 The Federal Court of Appeal has dismissed Nova's appeal of an earlier finding that it had infringed Dow's patent relating to polyethylene u......
-
Supreme Court Of Canada Affirms Record-setting $645M Patent Infringement Award In Dow v Nova
...and costs. Dow elected for an accounting of Nova's profits. The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the Federal Court decision on infringement (2016 FCA 216). Nova was denied leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Federal Court judgment on remedies In the quantification phase of the proceedings......
-
$644 Million Patent Infringement Judgment Is Largest In Canadian History
...Footnotes 1 Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation, 2014 FC 844, aff'd Nova Chemicals Corporation v. Dow Chemical Company, 2016 FCA 216. 2 Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation, 2017 FC 3 Dow Chemical Company v. Nova Chemicals Corporation, 2017 FC 637. The content o......